Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)

[VeritasSapere]

increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.

We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.

Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.

Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.

I disagree and we have discussed this extensively already so maybe we can just agree to disagree.

Obviously I do not support your extremist position that blocks over 200KB are to large. I think that Bitcoin can support much larger blocks without compromising decentralization and financial freedom.

[1714300234]

1714300234

[1714300234]

1714300234

[1714300234]

1714300234

[1714300234]

1714300234

[1714300234]

1714300234

[brg444]

increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.

We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.

Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.

Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.

I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.

Wow brb444 I never thought you would stoop so low. To quote me saying something that I have never said. For everyone reading this you should know that brb444 is lying, he quoted me saying something which I have never said.

That was me actually anticipating your answer which seeing what you posted right above I was quite correct about.

"I disagree because opinion & anecdotal fallacy"

[VeritasSapere]

increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.

We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.

Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.

Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.

I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.

Wow brb444 I never thought you would stoop so low. To quote me saying something that I have never said. For everyone reading this you should know that brb444 is lying, he quoted me saying something which I have never said.

That was me actually anticipating your answer which seeing what you posted right above I was quite correct about.

"I disagree because opinion & anecdotal fallacy"

No it is not, you quoted me saying something I never said or would say. It is fraud, libel and slander. You can spin this anyway you want, but it does not change what you just did. You could apologize and acknowledge that what you did is wrong or allow this to reflect badly on your character.

[muyuu]

increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.

We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.

Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.

Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.

I disagree and we have discussed this extensively already so maybe we can just agree to disagree.

Obviously I do not support your extremist position that blocks over 200KB are to large. I think that Bitcoin can support much larger blocks without compromising decentralization and financial freedom.

It's not a matter of agreement, a lot of people have stopped running their nodes for these reasons and there is overwhelming evidence of this fact.

We are not conjecturing about whether they will stop or not, this already happens, I know many cases myself and they are all over the place in this forum and reddit.

Ask people who stopped running their nodes why the did they stop.

These are facts to deal with, not to agree or disagree.

[brg444]

increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.

We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.

Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.

Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.

I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.

Wow brb444 I never thought you would stoop so low. To quote me saying something that I have never said. For everyone reading this you should know that brb444 is lying, he quoted me saying something which I have never said.

That was me actually anticipating your answer which seeing what you posted right above I was quite correct about.

"I disagree because opinion & anecdotal fallacy"

No it is not, you quoted me saying something I never said or would say. It is fraud, libel and slander. You can spin this anyway you want, but it does not change what you just did. You could apologize and acknowledge that what you did is wrong or allow this to reflect badly on your character.

I could've posted it without using the post header, but thought it would be funnier with it. Apologize? For what? A joke? I thought it was pretty spot on  

I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.

I disagree and we have discussed this extensively already so maybe we can just agree to disagree.

[VeritasSapere]

increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.

We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.

Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.

Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.

I disagree and we have discussed this extensively already so maybe we can just agree to disagree.

Obviously I do not support your extremist position that blocks over 200KB are to large. I think that Bitcoin can support much larger blocks without compromising decentralization and financial freedom.

It's not a matter of agreement, a lot of people have stopped running their nodes for these reasons and there is overwhelming evidence of this fact.

We are not conjecturing about whether they will stop or not, this already happens, I know many cases myself and they are all over the place in this forum and reddit.

Ask people who stopped running their nodes why the did they stop.

These are facts to deal with, not to agree or disagree.

I could say that there is overwhelming evidence to support what I am saying as well. Though that does not change your position does it. Stop pretending as if your position is the absolute truth based on factual evidence while saying that my position has absolutely no merit. Ridiculing my position to increase the blocksize as if I am some sort of mad man. When very reasonable and well informed people like Andreas Antonopoulos also support this position.

Gavin is right. The time to increase the block size limit is before transaction processing shows congestion problems. Discuss now, do soon.

You are coming across like a propagandist with your extremist position. This is not productive for constructive dialogue. Stating that your position is one of fact and that nobody should be able to disagree with you is false, since this question depends on our understanding of the technicalities of Bitcoin combined with our subjective ideologies, our subjective ideologies which include the concepts of decentralization and financial freedom are not in the realm of fact but are products of our subjective ideologies instead.

I can tell you that I have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around me. So my life and my experience and that of the people around me does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin.

[brg444]

increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.

We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.

Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.

Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.

I disagree and we have discussed this extensively already so maybe we can just agree to disagree.

Obviously I do not support your extremist position that blocks over 200KB are to large. I think that Bitcoin can support much larger blocks without compromising decentralization and financial freedom.

It's not a matter of agreement, a lot of people have stopped running their nodes for these reasons and there is overwhelming evidence of this fact.

We are not conjecturing about whether they will stop or not, this already happens, I know many cases myself and they are all over the place in this forum and reddit.

Ask people who stopped running their nodes why the did they stop.

These are facts to deal with, not to agree or disagree.

I can tell you that I have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around me. So my life and my experience and that of the people around me does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin.

I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.

Boy you are something else ! 

[brg444]

5 years later:

I can tell you that IGoogle & Amazon have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around methem. So my life and my their experience and that of the people around methem does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin.

PS:

The repeated argument to ignoramus (Andreas Antonopoulos) are the source of much lulz over here.

[VeritasSapere]

You should think very carefully why it is wrong to quote me saying something that I have never said, I do take offense to this. You should seriously consider apologizing to me for what you are doing. It is fraud, libel and slander. It also makes you a liar, putting your words into quotation marks under my name is wrong and highly deceptive.

You also do not know me, and what kind of a person I am. I care very much for the third world, it is part of the reason why i devoted such a large part of my life studying political philosophy, since many of the problems of the third world are caused by the first. I believe that Bitcoin can solve many of these problems as well. People in the third world do not need to run full nodes in order to be included in the Bitcoin economy, thinking that poor African people for instance need to be able to run full nodes is unrealistic.

[hdbuck]

increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.

We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.

Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.

Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.

I disagree and we have discussed this extensively already so maybe we can just agree to disagree.

Obviously I do not support your extremist position that blocks over 200KB are to large. I think that Bitcoin can support much larger blocks without compromising decentralization and financial freedom.

It's not a matter of agreement, a lot of people have stopped running their nodes for these reasons and there is overwhelming evidence of this fact.

We are not conjecturing about whether they will stop or not, this already happens, I know many cases myself and they are all over the place in this forum and reddit.

Ask people who stopped running their nodes why the did they stop.

These are facts to deal with, not to agree or disagree.

I can tell you that I have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around me. So my life and my experience and that of the people around me does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin.

I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.

Boy you are something else ! 

lmaoo

[VeritasSapere]

5 years later:

I can tell you that IGoogle & Amazon have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around methem. So my life and my their experience and that of the people around methem does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin.

The repeated argument to ignoramus (Andreas Antonopoulos) are the source of much lulz over here.

It is very revealing that you do not admire the work of Andreas Antonopoulos. Fortunately I suspect that most other people on this forum do. I will continue to follow the true original vision of Bitcoin founded by Satoshi Nakamoto and which is presently best expressed by Andreas Antonopoulos. This original vision of Bitcoin implies increasing the blocksize. You can disagree with this original vision, even though I do think that this disagreement would be best expressed in an alternative cryptocurrency instead of trying to force your own ideology onto Bitcoin.

[brg444]

You should think very carefully why it is wrong to quote me saying something that I have never said, I do take offense to this. You should seriously consider apologizing to me for what you are doing. It is fraud, libel and slander. It also makes you a liar, putting your words into quotation marks under my name is wrong and highly deceptive.

You also do not know me, and what kind of a person I am. I care very much for the third world, it is part of the reason why i devoted such a large part of my life studying political philosophy, since many of the problems of the third world are caused by the first. I believe that Bitcoin can solve many of these problems as well. People in the third world do not need to run full nodes in order to be included in the Bitcoin economy, thinking that poor African people for instance need to be able to run full nodes is unrealistic as well.

Solve politics plagued third-world with more politics  

Your sick parody of who lives in the third-world, as if it consists only of poor African kids shows how intellectually shallow of an individual you are. You deserve none of my respect, and certainly no apology.  

[VeritasSapere]

I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.

The highlighted quote was not made by me. It is an unethical attempt by brg444 at besmirching my character by using falsified and fraudulent quotes which I am not responsible for.

[brg444]

5 years later:

I can tell you that IGoogle & Amazon have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around methem. So my life and my their experience and that of the people around methem does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin.

The repeated argument to ignoramus (Andreas Antonopoulos) are the source of much lulz over here.

It is very revealing that you do not admire the work of Andreas Antonopoulos. Fortunately I suspect that most other people on this forum do. I will continue to follow the true original vision of Bitcoin founded by Satoshi Nakamoto and which is presently best expressed by Andreas Antonopoulos. This original vision of Bitcoin implies increasing the blocksize. You can disagree with this original vision, even though I do think that this disagreement would be best expressed in an alternative cryptocurrency instead of trying to force your own ideology onto Bitcoin.

Typical redditard homo-erotic fantasies of Andreas Antonopoulos and him saving poor African children with Bitcoin.

Don't you have any pride   Why do you keep bringing up "authorities" to reinforce your position?

[brg444]

I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.

The highlighted quote was not made by me. It is an unethical attempt by brg444 at besmirching my character by using falsified and fraudulent quotes which I am not responsible for.

He knows. He's laughing because the content quite fits your persona.

[hdbuck]

small recap of the previous page lulz

I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.

I can tell you that I have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around me. So my life and my experience and that of the people around me does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying.

5 years later:

I can tell you that IGoogle & Amazon have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around methem. So my life and my their experience and that of the people around methem does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin.

The repeated argument to ignoramus (Andreas Antonopoulos) are the source of much lulz over here.

It is very revealing that you do not admire the work of Andreas Antonopoulos. Fortunately I suspect that most other people on this forum do. I will continue to follow the true original vision of Bitcoin founded by Satoshi Nakamoto and which is presently best expressed by Andreas Antonopoulos. This original vision of Bitcoin implies increasing the blocksize. You can disagree with this original vision, even though I do think that this disagreement would be best expressed in an alternative cryptocurrency instead of trying to force your own ideology onto Bitcoin.

Typical redditard homo-erotic fantasies of Andreas Antonopoulos and him saving poor African children with Bitcoin.

Don't you have any pride   Why do you keep bringing up "authorities" to reinforce your position?

I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.

The highlighted quote was not made by me. It is an unethical attempt by brg444 at besmirching my character by using falsified and fraudulent quotes which I am not responsible for.

He knows. He's laughing because the content quite fits your persona.

[VeritasSapere]

5 years later:

I can tell you that IGoogle & Amazon have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around methem. So my life and my their experience and that of the people around methem does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin.

The repeated argument to ignoramus (Andreas Antonopoulos) are the source of much lulz over here.

It is very revealing that you do not admire the work of Andreas Antonopoulos. Fortunately I suspect that most other people on this forum do. I will continue to follow the true original vision of Bitcoin founded by Satoshi Nakamoto and which is presently best expressed by Andreas Antonopoulos. This original vision of Bitcoin implies increasing the blocksize. You can disagree with this original vision, even though I do think that this disagreement would be best expressed in an alternative cryptocurrency instead of trying to force your own ideology onto Bitcoin.

Typical redditard homo-erotic fantasies of Andreas Antonopoulos and him saving poor African children with Bitcoin.

Don't you have any pride   Why do you keep bringing up "authorities" to reinforce your position?

You can not mention pride after what you just did. It is not an argument by authority, I have already made my arguments, which are separate to the position of Andreas Antonopoulos. I mentioned his name because I am being ridiculed for wanting to increase the blocksize as if I am the only person who thinks that, which is obviously not true, furthermore because of the constant ad hominem attacks, I thought it would make sense to show you that Andreas Antonopoulos also supports increasing the blocksize. If I am wrong because I do not know what I am talking about and I am just some sort of "crazy XT fanatic" then surely you can not use these same "arguments" against Andreas Antonopoulos considering the respect and wisdom he commands within the Bitcoin community.

[brg444]

We're talking about the same Derpopoulos that believe bubbles and volatility are bad for Bitcoin right?

The same guy that broke blockchain.info?

The one who shared Bitcoin stealing Malware on his Twitter page?

This is the "expert" you claim?


 

[VeritasSapere]

I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.

The highlighted quote was not made by me. It is an unethical attempt by brg444 and hdbuck at besmirching my character by using falsified and fraudulent quotes which I am not responsible for.

[hdbuck]

5 years later:

I can tell you that IGoogle & Amazon have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around methem. So my life and my their experience and that of the people around methem does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin.

The repeated argument to ignoramus (Andreas Antonopoulos) are the source of much lulz over here.

It is very revealing that you do not admire the work of Andreas Antonopoulos. Fortunately I suspect that most other people on this forum do. I will continue to follow the true original vision of Bitcoin founded by Satoshi Nakamoto and which is presently best expressed by Andreas Antonopoulos. This original vision of Bitcoin implies increasing the blocksize. You can disagree with this original vision, even though I do think that this disagreement would be best expressed in an alternative cryptocurrency instead of trying to force your own ideology onto Bitcoin.

Typical redditard homo-erotic fantasies of Andreas Antonopoulos and him saving poor African children with Bitcoin.

Don't you have any pride   Why do you keep bringing up "authorities" to reinforce your position?

You can not mention pride after what you just did. It is not an argument by authority, I have already made my arguments, which are separate to the position of Andreas Antonopoulos. I mentioned his name because I am being ridiculed for wanting to increase the blocksize as if I am the only person who thinks that, which is obviously not true, furthermore because of the constant ad hominem attacks, I thought it would make sense to show you that Andreas Antonopoulos also supports increasing the blocksize. If I am wrong because I do not know what I am talking about and I am just some sort of "crazy XT fanatic" then surely you can not use these same "arguments" against Andreas Antonopoulos considering the respect and wisdom he commands within the Bitcoin community.

suck it up!





derp.